PSALMS, BOOK OF (ψαλμόι, twangings > the sounds of a harp > songs sung to a harp > psalms). The OT’s primary book of lyric poetry.

I. Name

A. Based on content. The Hebrew title for the Book of Psalms is תְּהִילִּים, meaning praises. The term reflects much of its contents (cf. Ps 145, title).

B. Based on form. The Hebrew nouns that identify the formal literary types of most of the Psalms are: שִׁיר֮, H8877, song (for twenty-nine pss); and, most commonly (for fifty-seven pss.), מִזְמﯴר, H4660, melody, psalm (BDB, 274) from the root זמר, to play a musical instrument, hence sing with instrumental accompaniment, sing, praise (ibid., and KB, 260). Neither of these, however, developed into a title for the entire Book of Psalms in Heb.

But in the Greek, Latin, and English Bibles, Psalms is named from the Greek ψαλμός, G6011, which means a twanging of bow strings or harp strings (Euripides, Ion, 176) and then, as a result, a song sung to the accompaniment of a harp—pl., ὁι ψαλμόι, the Psalms. This last phrase became the name for the Book of Psalms in the LXX, and it is authenticated in the NT (Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20). It reflects the form of the book’s poetry. The same is true of its alternate title (Codex A), ψαλτήριον, meaning psaltery and then a collection of harp songs, from which comes the Eng. term, “Psalter.”

II. Authorship

The Psalms are poems, and as such they make little attempt within their various poetic forms to elaborate the circumstances of their composition.

A. Titles. As might indeed be expected, many of them do prefix explanatory titles in prose, indicating their authorship and sometimes also the occasion for writing, as well as the poetic type and musical directions (see below, sections III, VI, and VII). Most commonly appears the phrase מִזְמֹ֥ור לְדָוִ֑ד, a psalm of David (Solomon, etc.). The Heb. preposition לְ, rendered of, expresses authorship; cf. Habakkuk 3:1, תְּפִלָּ֖ה לַחֲבַקּ֣וּק הַנָּבִ֑יא, a prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, which clearly intends the prophet himself as author. But לְ may also indicate possession, ֭לַֽיהוָה֙ הָאָ֣רֶץ, “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1), or dedication or assignment, לַמְנַצֵּ֥חַ, to the choirmaster (RSV, Ps 4, etc., title). Whereas “Psalm of David” has thus sometimes been interpreted to mean merely “of Davidic character” or “belonging to a collection entitled, David,” the actual usage of this phrase in the Book of Psalms does demonstrate Davidic authorship; e.g. Psalm 18, title, “לְדָוִֽד, of David, who spoke unto Yahweh the words of this song in the day that Yahweh delivered him from the hand of all his enemies...and he said:...” (cf. Ps 7).

The Book of Psalms thus assigns seventy-three of its chs. to David, two to Solomon (Pss 72; 127), one each to the wise men Heman and Ethan (Pss 88, 89, cf. 1 Kings 4:31), one to Moses (Ps 90), and twenty-three to the Levitical singing-clans of Asaph (Pss 50; 73-83) and Korah (Pss 42, including 43; 44-49; 84; 85; 87). The mention of “the sons of Korah,” along with Heman, in the title to Psalm 88 seems to concern compilation rather than authorship; see below, IV, C. The remaining forty-nine psalms are anonymous.

B. Criticism. Negative Biblical criticism consistently rejects the psalm titles as of little value (IB, IV, 8). As R. H. Pfeiffer has so dramatically put it, “For the dating of individual psalms, the names of authors mentioned in the titles...with the possible exception of Heman and Ethan are utterly irrelevant” (Introduction to the OT, 629). One suspects, however, that such denials spring from an evolutionary bias, which refuses to admit as genuinely Davidic the advanced spiritual conceptions that Scripture assigns to an era 1,000 years b.c. Of peculiar character is the criticism of J. W. Thirtle (The Titles of the Psalms [1904]), who proposed that the titles should be assigned as colophons to the compositions that preceded them, rather as titles to the chs. that followed them. His contention is now universally rejected.

From the viewpoint of lower criticism, no significant evidence exists for denying the authenticity of the psalm titles within the text of the OT. All Heb. MSS contain these titles. The earliest VSS, except for the Syr., not only exhibit their trs. but even misrepresent (e.g., in the LXX) certain of their meanings, which had been lost because of their antiquity. Hebrew Bibles as well as some of the modern VSS, regularly include the titles in the numbered vv. of the inspired text, thus raising the v. numbers in many of the psalms by one or two digits.

From the viewpoint of higher criticism, all now recognize that poems in psalm form appear in the OT long before the time of David (cf. Exod 15; Deut 32-33; Judg 5). In particular, archeological research in Babylonia and Egypt has brought to light advanced hymnody, centuries before Abraham. The recovery of Canaanitish lit. at Ugarit has furnished significant parallels to the psalms, from the time of Moses (cf. J. Patton, Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms) and the major researches of M. Dahood (Anchor Bible, Psalms). Portions of Psalm 104, between vv. 20-30, indicate a relationship with the 14th cent. Egyp. Hymn to Aton; and it has been said that “Psalm 29 is clearly taken over from a Ugaritic poem to Baal, with Yahweh substituted for the Canaanite deity” (O. R. Sellers, in H. Willoughby, The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, 142; cf. H. L. Ginsberg in BA, 8 [1945], 53, 54). The order of the letters in the Sem. alphabet has been demonstrated from Ugarit, thus confirming the possible antiquity of the eight acrostic poems in Psalms 9; 10; 25; 34; 37; 111; 112; 114; 119, the first four of which claim Davidic authorship. To a greater or lesser degree, Patton indicates dependence upon Ugaritic forms in 120 out of the 150 psalms and this should not cause alarm—the Hebrews, after all, adopted the Canaanite language to a large extent when they moved into Pal. (cf. the implications of Gen 31:47); and no objection should be raised to the incorporation of source material within Scripture, provided such theories do not question either the correctness of the material or the Bible’s own claims to its composition—but appreciation, as the historicity and antiquity of Scripture is given validation.

Modern scholarship is becoming increasingly hesitant to assign various psalms to later periods because of presumed Aramaisms in language (IB, IV:11). David is known to have enjoyed musical and literary endowments (1 Sam 16:16-18; Amos 6:5); cf. his acknowledged composition of 2 Samuel 1:19-27; 3:33, 34, and prob. also ch. 22 (Ps 18). If Scripture’s own teaching is accepted, David may be seen to have exercised leadership in the development of Israel’s liturgy (2 Sam 6:5, 16; 1 Chron 15; 16; 25; 2 Chron 7:6; 29:30) and to have realized Spiritborn empowerment as “the sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sam 23:1, 2; Mark 12:36; Acts 1:16; 2:30, 31; 4:25; see David).

The exhaustive analysis of R. D. Wilson (PTR, XXIV [1926], 353-395) has demonstrated the compatibility of David’s authorship with the content of each psalm attributed by title to him. A similar approach, for those open to receive it, may be applied to those other, non-Davidic psalms, which Scripture assigns to its earlier psalm compilations. Psalm 44 (in Book II), for example, has been considered Maccabean (IB, IV, 228); but it is equally comprehensible as stemming from David’s era, under military duress (cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms, 344, 345).

The NT repeatedly authenticates ascriptions to David: Psalms 16 (Acts 2:25); 32 (Rom 4:6); 69 (Acts 1:16; Rom 11:9); 110 (Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34). From the last cited, it becomes clear that the NT is not simply employing “Davidic” terminology but is consciously asserting David’s own authorship: the force of the Lord’s argument, that is, depends on David being the one who called his son His Lord (cf. Luke 20:44). Even a liberal critic (seeking to undermine the authenticity of the latter part of Isaiah, q.v.) has conceded: “If the use of Isaiah’s name along with portions of the disputed chs. were involved in the arguments which they are borrowed to illustrate, as, for instance, in the case with David’s name in the quotation made by our Lord from Psalm 110, then those who deny the unity of the Book would be face to face with a very serious problem indeed” (G. A. Smith, The Book of Isaiah, II:6).

Certain of the anonymously titled psalms are also recognized by the NT as of Davidic composition, namely, Psalms 2 (Acts 4:25) and 95 (Heb 4:7). The phrase by which the NT introduces the vv. from the latter is this: λέγων ἐν Δαυίδ, saying in David, which some have interpreted as follows: “saying in the person of David, who was regarded as the author of the whole Psalter, and not ‘in the book of David’” (B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 97). Westcott’s last observation is an important one; for if one were to charge the NT with teaching that the Book of Psalms were a Davidic product he would involve the NT writers in obvious error, in light of the Psalms that are known to be post-Davidic (e.g., 72, 107). As Delitzsch has remarked, “That ἐν Δαυίδ is intended to signify ‘in the book of Psalms’...is improbable; in that case he must at least have said ἐν τῷ Δαυίδ; but the Psalter...is never thus cited, and least of all here, where a psalm is spoken of which the LXX actually superscribes with τῷ Δαυίδ” (Comm. on the Hebrews, I:196). This referring of the vv. to the person of David thus indicates the great king’s responsibility for Psalm 95, but by no means, as in Westcott’s preceding observation, for “the whole Psalter.” This latter, unwarranted expansion of the application of Hebrews 4:7 seems designed to render more justifiable his concluding comment, “The expression, which follows the common mode of speaking, is not to be regarded by itself as decisive of the authorship of the Psalm (loc. cit.). On the contrary, when the NT speaks, its words are of necessity decisive, for those at least who are committed to its plenary authority.”

Similarly, Psalms 96, 105, and 106 are recognized as David’s words by another Biblical passage, though this time in the OT (1 Chron 16:8-36). W. T. Davison has properly cautioned: “The Psalm is not directly attributed to David as the tr. of v. 7 in KJV would imply [‘On that day David delivered first this Ps to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren’]. The phraseology only emphasizes the fact that David took especial care concerning the giving of thanks: ‘On that day did David make it his chief work to give thanks unto the Lord by the hands of Asaph and his brethren.’” A psalm follows, however, that consists of 105:1-15, 96, and certain vv. (1, 47, 48) from Psalm 106. Apparently, therefore, the Chronicler had these psalms—possibly a collection containing these psalms—before him when he wrote” (HDB, IV, 148). Whereas the Chronicler doubtless was aware of these psalms, 1 Chronicles 16:36 demonstrates that David’s associates had the collection before them as well: “And all the people [present at that time, with David] said [proceeding to quote the concluding doxology in Ps 106:48], Amen...” This Davison himself concedes, saying, “In ch. 16, in the course of an account of the bringing up of the ark to the city of David, the writer puts a psalm into the mouth of David as appropriate to such an occasion” (ibid.). The basic point is that when it is the author of Scripture who “puts a psalm into the mouth of David,” then such a psalm must actually have been the king’s. Several more of the anonymously titled psalms may be Davidic too. But it is significant that no psalm which claims other authorship, or contains later historical allusions (as Ps 137, exilic), is ever attributed in Scripture to the great monarch.

III. Occasions

For the majority of its chs., Psalms was composed during the united kingdom (1043-930 b.c.); it is thus antedated only by Genesis-Ruth among the books of the OT corpus. Precise occasions often are difficult to pinpoint within this well-known hundred year period.

A. Titles. The titles of fourteen of the Davidic psalms designate specific occasions of composition. These in turn contribute to a historical understanding of Scripture, as follows (in chronological order):

Psalm 59 was occasioned by the incident recorded in 1 Samuel 19:11 and sheds light on the character of David’s jealous associates (Ps 59:12).

56 shows how David’s fear at Gath (1 Sam 21:10) led to faith (Ps 56:12).

34 illuminates God’s subsequent goodness (vv. 6-8; cf. 1 Sam 21:13).

142, because of the persecution it describes (v. 6), suggests David’s experience at the cave of Adullam (1 Sam 22:1) rather than at En-gedi (Ps 57, below).

52 (cf. v. 3) emphasizes Saul’s wickedness, as Doeg’s superior (1 Sam 22:9).

54 (cf. v. 3) judges the Ziphites (1 Sam 23:13).

57 concerns the cave of En-gedi, when Saul was caught in his own trap (v. 6; 1 Sam 24:1).

7 introduces slanderous Cush (vv. 3 and 8 correspond to 1 Sam 24:11, 12).

18 is repeated as a whole in 2 Samuel 22 and belongs chronologically at 2 Samuel 7:1.

60 (cf. v. 10) illumines the dangerous Edomitic campaign (2 Sam 3:13, 14; 1 Chron 18:12; referred to in 1 Kings 11:15).

51 elaborates on David’s guilt with Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:13, 14).

3 (cf. v. 5) depicts David’s faith at the time of Absalom’s revolt (2 Sam 15:16).

63 sheds light on David’s flight E at this time (2 Sam 16:2), for in his previous flights he was not as yet king (Ps 63:11).

30 alludes to David’s sins of pride in his armed power (vv. 5, 6; cf. 2 Sam 24:2), prior to the brief pestilence (2 Sam 24:13-17; 1 Chron 21:11-17), his repentance, and his dedication of the altar and “house” (sacred temple area, 1 Chron 22:1) of Yahweh.

Among the remaining psalms whose titles express authorship, the twenty-three composed by Israel’s singers exhibit widely separated backgrounds, since these Levitical clans continued active into postexilic times (Ezra 2:41). Most of them pertain to the Davidic or Solomonic periods. Psalm 83, however, suits the ministry of the Asaphite Jahaziel in 852 b.c. (cf. vv. 5-8 with 2 Chron 20:1, 2, 14), while Psalms 74, 79, and the concluding strophe of 88-89 were produced by Asaphites and Korahites who apparently survived the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. (74:3, 8, 9; 79:1; 89:44).

B. Date. Among the titleless and anonymous psalms, a few stem from the Exile (137), from the return to Judah in 537 b.c. (107:2, 3; 126:1), or from Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls in 444 b.c. (147:13). Others that depict tragedy could as easily relate to the disorders of Absalom’s revolt or to similar Davidic calamities (cf. Pss 102:13, 22; 106:41-47). R. Laird Harris expresses commendable critical caution, stating,

It is of some interest that the historical allusions of the psalms do not go beyond the times of David, except for the anonymous psalm of the Captivity, Psalm 137. Several psalms refer in general terms to times of captivity and hardship and to periods of desolation of the Temple (for example...80, 85, 129). These are quite general poetic descriptions, however, and we must remember that Jerusalem was sacked more than once. David himself suffered two palace revolts. None of the above psalms is ascribed to David, though some of them could be of his days or soon thereafter (C. F. H. Henry, ed., The Biblical Expositor, II, 49).

Even apart from their skepticism over the psalm titles (see above, II, B), liberal scholars have tended to assign late dates to the psalms. Such interpreters once spoke confidently of numerous Maccabean (2nd cent. b.c.) psalms; R. H. Pfeiffer, for example, insisted that “the real question with regard to the Psalter is not whether it contains Maccabean psalms of the 2nd cent., but rather whether any psalms are preexilic psalms....Apparently only two (24:7-10 and 45) are entirely free from the pecularities of thought and expression of postexilic Judaism and can possibly be dated earlier than the 7th cent. b.c.” (Introduction to the OT, 629, 631). It was asserted that grammatical forms such as the וּת, -ût, ending for abstract nouns (as in Ps 110:3), are Aramaisms and therefore of late date, though an accurate definition speaks of this phenomenon “becoming more common only in the later books” (E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, sec. 86k). It has even been claimed that Psalms 2 and 110 were written as acrostics to glorify Hasmonean rulers, respectively, “Jannaeus A(lexander) and his wife” (at their marriage in 103 b.c.) and “Simon” (143-135 b.c.); cf. Pfeiffer, op. cit., 630.

But these theories were proposed before the discovery of the DSS that date from that very Maccabean period and include MSS both of the canonical psalms and of the הﯴדָיﯴת, thanksgivings (secondary psalmodic compositions), and other books that incorporate materials from the Biblical Book of Psalms. F. M. Cross has further observed that “the psalms of the Maccabean period are much developed from the latest of the OT psalms,” which establishes the Persian era as the most recent possible point for inspired psalmody (The Ancient Library of Qumran, rev. ed., 165, 166; cf. J. P. Hyatt, JBL, LXXII [1957], 5, or O. Eissfeldt, in B. W. Anderson, ed., Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, 196). The Qumran evidence reinforces the evangelical hypothesis that Ezra may not only be the author of his own book and of 1-2 Chronicles (some of the last in the OT) but may also be the compiler of the entire Jewish canon, including Psalms, shortly after 424 b.c. (Darius II, mentioned in Neh 12:22).

IV. Compilation

The entire collection of psalms consists of 150 chs. (cf. SIOT, 433, on later Talmudic variations). These constitute 148 individual psalms, since Psalms 9-10 make up one acrostic poem and are counted together as Psalm 9 in the LXX and Psalms 42-43 seem likewise to have made up one original composition, cf. the repeated refrain in 42:5, 11 and 43:5. Neither 10 nor 43 have a separate title; they may have been divided off from 9 and 42 for special liturgical reasons. The order of chs. in the Book is ancient, dating back presumably to the original compilation (see below). The present sequence is validated by the order of the LXX, whose tr. of Psalms was completed before the end of the 3rd cent. b.c. (IDB, III, 943b); and it is confirmed by the NT; cf. Paul’s reference in Acts 13:33 to “the second psalm.” The canonical Psalms fragments of the first Christian cent. from Qumran, published in 1965-1967, approximate the MT order, though without complete correspondence (e.g., 109, 118, and 147 are inserted within 101-105; and 146, 148 before, and 119 after, 121-132; J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 156).

In addition to Psalms 9-10, the LXX also combines two of the Hallel Psalms, 114 and 115, but only “for liturgical reasons” (ICC, Psalms, II: 393). As a result Psalm 115 is designated 113:9-26 in the LXX enumeration. But since the LXX later divides Psalm 116 and 147 into two separate chs. each, it concludes with the same total of 150. The LXX’s socalled 151st Psalm has a Heb. prototype, discovered at Qumran Cave II; but even the Gr. text inserts the caution that this supplement is ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, outside the number. The practical significance of the LXX’s variations thus relates neither to content nor to arrangement, but simply to enumeration. Since it is the LXX that determines nomenclature for the Lat. Vul., and hence for Roman Catholic Eng. VSS, the ch. numbers of the Psalms in the latter are one number lower (two numbers lower for 115-116) than in other Bibles, except for Psalms 1-9 and 147-150.

The 150 psalms are then organized into five books: 1-41, 42-72, 73-89, 90-106, and 107-150. A given psalm or psalm portion may, moreover, appear in more than one collection: Psalms 14 and a part of 40, in Book I, reappear, respectively, as 53 and 70 in Book II; and the latter halves of 57 and 60, in Book II combine as 108 in Book V. It seems likely, therefore, that each book compilation experienced at least an initial period of independent existence. Furthermore, since the last psalm of each collection was composed with terminal ascriptions or doxologies that were designed to mark the completion of each book as a whole (Pss 41:13; 72:18-20; 89:52; 106:48, and the entire 150th Ps for Book V), it appears that the origins of these five concluding psalms provide clues for the compilation of their respective books.

A. Davidic. Psalm 41 was written by David; and, since the remaining psalms of Book I are also attributed to him (except for Ps 1, which constitutes the Book’s introduction; Ps 10, which combines with 9 to form one continuous acrostic, as noted above; and Ps 33, which has no title), it would appear that David brought together the first collection some time before his death in 970 b.c. Book I consists primarily of personal psalms which arose out of the king’s own experiences.

David further composed Psalm 106 (cf. 1 Chron 16:34-36; and see above, II, B), so that Book IV must likewise be traced to David’s own hand, prior to 970. It consists of a Mosaic composition (Ps 90, the oldest of all) and other Davidic psalms (96; 101; 103; 105) but mostly of anonymous chs. Its nature is liturgical, in contrast with the more personal character of Psalms 1-41.

B. Solomonic. Books II-III exhibit more of a national interest; one might also note, through Psalm 83, their relative preference for the divine name אֱלֹהִים, H466, God transcendent, rather than for the Lord’s personal name, יהוה, H3378, Yahwe(h). King Solomon (d. 930 b.c.) was responsible for the doxology of 72:18-20; he thus becomes the historical compiler of Book II. His concluding reference to “the prayers of David” (72:20) seems to be due to his father’s having composed over half of the chs. that make up Psalms 42-72, namely 51-70 (except possibly the “orphan” [titleless] Pss 66; 67). yet Psalms 42-49 are productions of the singing guild of the Sons of Korah; and 50, of Asaph. As noted above, the fact that Psalm 14 is almost exactly duplicated in Psalm 53, except for the divine name אֱלֹהִים, H466, in the latter, suggests an existence for Book II that was originally independent from the Davidic I and IV compilation.

C. Exilic. Book III, however, contains Psalms 74; 79; and 89:38-52, with their references to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. (see above, III, A). The last named, moreover, contains the concluding doxology that marks the time of the compilation of the Book; and 89:38-52 would then appear, in turn, to be identified by the initial part of the title that is prefixed to Psalm 88. Though the bodies of Psalms 88, 89 are entitled maschilim, or instructive psalms (see below, VI, A), written by Solomon’s wise Ezrahites Heman and Ethan, the “traditional” authors (CBSC, Pss, II:524), the former psalm has yet what appears to be an additional title prefixed to that of Heman: “A psalm, a song of the sons of Korah....” The term שִׁיר֮, H8877, identifies a song, regularly of joyful praise (cf. Pss 30; 45; etc.), at least of confidence (83; 120). Yet “on one matter all commentators who deal with Psalm 88 are fully agreed: it is the gloomiest psalm found in the Scripture” (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms, 626).

The inappropriateness of שִׁיר֮, H8877, as a description for Psalm 88 is counterbalanced, however, by its applicability to Psalm 89 (cf. vv. 1, 2), so that 88 prob. “is but the first part of the whole, consisting of Psalms 88 and 89; [and] the title, in its first part, belongs to both” (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the OT and NT, III, 289).

Furthermore, the joyous composition of the Solomonic Ethan (89:1-37) has added to it the exilic supplement (of vv. 38-52), to which the Korahite title must also refer. The sons of Korah are thus ultimately responsible for Psalm 89’s terminal strophe, which they seem to have suffixed in the spirit of Psalm 88. Hence the entirety of Book III would have been completed and collected by this unnamed group of Korahites soon after 586 b.c.

This third book includes a variety of compositions: 86, by David; 73-83, Asaphite; and 84, 85, and 87, also Korahite. When inserted between Books I-II and Book IV it completed Israel’s psalter of the Exile. Since the divine process of compiling the Psalms had at this juncture come to embrace all but the last forty-four chs., the inadequacy of the often used description for Psalms as “the hymnbook of the second temple” (e.g., S. Terrien, The Psalms and their Meaning for Today, 32) becomes apparent. For such a description prejudices both the purpose and the date of the Psalter: on the one hand, many of the psalms were never intended as public hymns (see below, VII; and J. Paterson, The Praises of Israel, 3); and, on the other, whereas all were clearly in existence in the days of the postexilic Temple, most of them had been just as available in the days of the first Temple too.

D. Restoration. Finally Book V parallels David’s Book IV in liturgical interest; but it includes several postexilic psalms (e.g., 107; cf. vv. 2, 3), as well as fifteen Davidic chs. and one by Solomon (Ps 127). It must have come into being after the return of 537 b.c. and existed for some time as a vol. independent from the preceding four books: this would account for the presence of Psalm 108 which, as indicated above, is essentially a combination of 57:7-11 and 60:5-12, all three being Davidic by title.

It then remained for a Spirit-led scribe to bring Book V into union with I-IV, adding his own inspired composition of Psalms 146-150 as a grand hallelujah for the entire Psalter. Since this last writing occurred in 444 b.c. (Ps 147:13), at the time of Ezra’s proclamation of the written law and reform of Temple worship (Neh 8-10), it may well be that Ezra himself executed the final compilation of the Book (cf. Ezra 7:10).

Since the time of Ezra, certain minor scribal corruptions have found their way into the text of Psalms; cf. for example the dislocations in the acrostic structure of Psalm 9-10. The text in general is well preserved, as a comparison of the MT with the LXX and other ancient VSS readily demonstrates. The only change of real doctrinal moment is a later Jewish attempt to avoid the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 22:16, “כָּארוּ, they pierced my hands and my feet,” by reading, “כָּאֲרִ֗י, like a lion, my hands and my feet” (IDB, III, 944). Other passages, even in this major passion psalm (e.g., 22:7, 8, 18), remain untouched.

V. Canonicity

The 150 psalms of the OT are inspired of God (2 Tim 3:16; cf. Luke 24:44). This conclusion is based on apostolic authority, for Peter could quote from them as “the scripture...which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16). David himself, moreover, affirmed, “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue” (2 Sam 23:2). The Psalms are therefore divinely canonical: a κανών, G2834, authoritative standdard or rule of faith (Arndt, 403). They possess canonicity by virtue of their origin as redemptive revelation (see Canon of the Old Testament).

A. Canonization. It stands, accordingly, as a “fundamental error” to consider canonization as describing an action in time, taken by men, by which a given book is rendered authoritative, as if “what was not itself intended to be sacred, nevertheless became sacred” (Wm. H. Green, General Introduction to the OT, the Canon, 26, 27). Books cannot “become” canonical or have canonicity imparted to them; from God’s viewpoint, “If a certain writing has indeed been the product of divine inspiration, it belongs in the canon from the moment of its composition” (E. J. Young, An Introduction to the OT, 33). To assert to the contrary, or that “it lies in the original nature of all sacred writings that they become sacred without intending it” (Green, op. cit., 26), is simply, on a priori grounds, to deny the possibility of a written divine authority and to designate that human action of canonization as an unwarranted one.

From man’s viewpoint, however, some of the psalms do seem to have arisen as the outpouring of the human spirit, without the writers’ apparent consciousness at the time that their writings were to serve as inspired standards of life (cf. Pss 42; 130). In such cases “canonization” became necessary, provided this is understood as “a matter of recognition of the qualities already inherent by divine act in the books so inspired” (SOTI, 69).

For Books I, II, and IV of the Psalter, such canonization must have occurred with considerable rapidity. Psalm 18, e.g., was included within the canonical Book of Samuel, q.v. (2 Sam 22), within half a century of the death of David (cf. the chronological implications of 1 Sam 27:6; and of 2 Sam 17:17-21; 18:19-30: Ahimaaz, its author?); and Psalms 96; 105; and 106 were “appointed” by David as a standard for public worship at the outset of his own reign over Israel (1 Chron 16:7-36). The assignment of many others to the charge of chief musicians, for directing Israel’s worship, is evidence of a similar, conscious Davidic canonizing. The facts of David’s and Solomon’s intentional compilation of Books I, II, and IV within their own lifetimes gives further testimony to the contemporaneous recognition of the authority of at least those eighty-nine psalms.

When the exilic singing-guild of the Sons of Korah concluded Psalm 89 with a doxology (89:52), patterned on those of the previous books, that suggests an awareness of a parallel canonicity for Book III; and the five-psalms-doxology (146-150) of Book V implies not only an equivalent authority for all five books but also the concept that precisely these 150 psalms were now set apart as a distinctive, completed portion of the canon.

External testimony to the canonical acceptance of Psalms is lacking until the intertestamental period, when the Apoc. speaks of “the books of David” in parallel with “the books about the kings and prophets” (2 Macc 2:13) and quotes directly from Psalm 79:2, 3 as canonical (1 Macc 7:17). Psalms were part of the 3rd cent. b.c. LXX tr. of the Bible, and Qumranic MSS of the 2nd cent. b.c. give evidence that “the collection of canonical Psalms was fixed by Maccabean times” (Cross, op. cit., 165). The major Psalms scroll from Qumran Cave 11, together with five other fragments that once formed parts of it, now touches on forty-one of the chs. of Books IV and V (with the aforementioned variations in order); but it also presents insertions from 2 Samuel 23 and Jeremiah 10 and from eight apocryphal compositions, including parts of Ecclesiasticus 51. J. A. Sanders suggests: “One may look at the fluidity of order in the Psalms Scroll in one of two ways: either as unique and at variance with a generally accepted order; or as a ‘local text’ representing a limited but valid Psalter tradition.” He prefers the latter alternative and considers the Cave 11 scroll “as a signpost in the multi-faceted history of the canonization of the Psalter,” which became “fixed by sections progressively from the front to the back” (The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 13). He elsewhere grants that this scroll is marked by “floating bits of liturgical literature” (ibid., 156); and his conclusion does fly in the face of the above noted Biblical data that favors the Davidic formulation of Book IV. The Cave 11 scroll seems best seen as a sort of service lectionary rather than the OT canon.

B. Arrangement. Within the total canon of the OT, according to the old Heb. arrangement, the Book of Psalms follows “the Law” and “the Prophets” and inaugurates the final division of the OT, called “the Writings” (cf. Luke 24:44). As Josephus explained during the 1st Christian cent., the OT consists of a total of twenty-two books. The Pentateuch makes up five; the Prophets, thirteen (8 “former prophets”—the historical books of Josh, Judg-Ruth, Sam, Kings, Chron, Ezra-Neh, Esth, and Job—and 5 “latter”: Isa, Jer-Lam, Ezek, Dan, and the twelve minor prophets); and the remaining four books of the canon “embrace hymns to God and counsels for men for the conduct of life” (Apion, I. 8): namely Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. By the 4th cent., liturgical considerations had altered the old Heb. arrangement to its present rabbinical order, in which a number of the prophetic books have been transferred from the second to the third division (see [http://biblegateway/wiki/Canon of the Old Testament CANON, OT]; and cf. R. L. Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the OT, 141-145).

The older arrangement of the canon is, however, reflected in the Gr. (and Eng.) Bible, with this difference: that the Book of Psalms, together with the other three of Josephus’ poetic books, is now inserted between the former and the latter prophets. This has NT support from the Lord Himself, namely His testimony in Matthew 23:35 to Genesis-through-Zechariah (and Mal) as marking off the OT Bible, from “first to last” (cf. J. B. Payne, “Zachariah Who Perished,” The Grace Journal, 8:3 [Fall, 1967], 33-35).

VI. Contents

Psalms ranks next to Jeremiah as the longest book in the Heb. Bible, and it possesses some of the most inspiring subject matter. It is more quoted by the NT than any other book and is revered by Christians up to the present day. The Psalter is individualistic, personal, and emotional; its 150 poems constitute, in fact, the height of God-given lit.

Each of the psalms exhibits, moreover, the formal characteristics of Heb. poetry (see Hebrew Poetry). This consists, not primarily in rhyme, or even rhythmic balance, but rather in a parallelism of thought, whereby succeeding phrases either repeat or in some way elaborate the previous line. The poems vary in content. Hermann Gunkel has proposed a number of categories, not all of which appear valid (see below, VII); but the following psalm types do distinguish themselves, by their Heb. titles or by subject.

A. Titles. A total of five elements may appear in the titles of the canonical psalms: (1) assignment, (2) music, (3a-b) literary type and aim, (4) author (see II, A, above), and (5) occasion (see III, A). Only Psalm 60 contains all five, as follows: “[1] To the choirmaster: [2] according to Shushan Eduth. [3a] A Michtam [4] of David; [3b] for instruction; [5] when he strove with Aram-naharaim and with Aramzobah, and when Joab on his return killed twelve thousand of Edom in the Valley of Salt.” Most of the psalms have titles that contain one or more of these elements. (1) and (2) are discussed below, under the “Use of psalms”; but (3), on literary type, serves as an introduction to the contents of the Psalter, although one must recognize a degree of uncertainty over some of the exact connotations of these titles.

The greatest number of the poems possess a lyric, singing quality and are entitled “psalm,” מִזְמֹ֥ור, with the name’s emphasis resting upon the stringed accompaniment (see above, I, B, 57 times), or “song,” שִׁיר֮, H8877, emphasizing joyful melody (29 times). Their praises may be general (e.g., Ps 145) or specific (e.g., Ps 19, concerning God’s revelation). The actual title תְּהִלָּ֗ה, praise, occurs only for Psalm 145.

Also of a somewhat lyric quality is the תְּפִלָּ֗ה, prayer, a title which identifies the contents of Psalms 17; 86; 90; 102; and 142. Some of these chs. contain elements of laments (e.g., 86:1-3); but the character varies, and many more of the psalms are phrased either in part or in whole as prayers to God.

שִׁגָּיֹ֗ון, “Shiggaion” (Ps 7; Hab 3:1), is prob. dirge (KB, 948). It suggests the emotion of grief and validates Gunkel’s categories of both national and individual laments. Certain psalms, such as 79; 83; and parts of 44; 74; and 89:38-51, approach the elegiac character of 2 Samuel 1:19-27; 3:33, 34, the Book of Lamentations, or other OT examples of the קִינָה֒, H7806, lament form, though this term does not actually appear in a psalm title. The name מִכְתָּ֥ם “Michtam,” is rendered as atoning [?] (SOTI, 435). It introduces Psalms 16; 56-60, perhaps because of references to covered sins (cf. vv. 1, 5 in the aforementioned 60th Ps.); see below, B, 6, on the Penitential psalms. All the Michtam psalms are lamentations.

A number of portions in the Psalter (e.g., 34:11-16) exhibit a marked gnomic or wisdom character, much akin to Proverbs; cf. Psalms 37; 49; 73; 128; 133; and esp. Solomon’s Psalm 127. Less clearly associated with the gnomic literary type, but pointing in the same direction, is the title מַשְׂכִּיל, H5380, “Maskil,” instructive [?], which suggests a didactic or at least meditative quality. It appears in thirteen of the superscriptions. Rather than being considered as true psalms, however, the gnomic poems are more appropriately classified under the OT’s Wisdom Literature (q.v.).

B. Subjects. Apart from their titles, the psalms are most satisfactorily categorized on the basis of their subject matter. A number of modern critics, following Gunkel, have sought for a more objective standpoint and have attempted to group the poems of the Psalter according to certain formal characteristics. A psalm, e.g., that consists of a petitionary invocation, followed by a description of the psalmist’s distress, and concludes with an expression of trust in Yahweh, is designated a “lament” (G. Fohrer, Introduction to the OT, 261, 262, 267). Whereas a few such forms may appear to be capable of isolation, this approach as a whole must be designated inadequate: on the one hand, because of the variety that is exhibited by the psalms, so much latitude has had to be allowed within any given formal category that distinguishability has become questionable; and, on the other hand, a psalm’s form seems to follow upon an almost predictable basis from its content, e.g., how else would a lament naturally be phrased, other than by an invocation, description of the problem, and then a commitment to God? The following categories are based on content but are by no means exhaustive; they do, however, cover some of the more significant or more distinguishable subjects that appear in the Book of Psalms on the relationships of God and men.

1. Praise. The central personality of all Scripture is God, and the Biblical poems delight in summoning creation to the praise of its divine creator. Such תְּהִילִּים, praises, technically “hymns,” frequently commence with an appeal to exalt Yahweh (e.g., Ps 33:1-3), followed by the main body of the psalm, which presents the ground for the appeal and often is introduced by כִּי, for (e.g., 33:4, “for the word of Yahweh is upright”), or אֲשֶׁר, H889, who (e.g., 16:7, “who gives me counsel”), or a part (e.g., 147:2, 3,...֭הָרֹפֵא...בּﯴנֵ֣ה יְרוּשָׁלִַ֣ם, lit., one building Jerusalem...the one healing...; cf. 103:3-6). A conclusion may then resume the initial appeal (e.g., 103:20-22), but not always so (e.g., the above cited 33 or 147, though the latter does conclude with הַֽלְלוּ־יָֽהּ, Praise Yahweh!). The Heb. hymns of praise are distinguished by their descriptions of the nature and the qualities of God, whether in testimony about Him or in direct prayer to Him, rather than by some consistent, formal character.

In keeping with Scripture as a whole, the Psalms do not attempt to prove God’s reality. The so-called “existence of God” Psalms 10, 14, 53, e.g., 10:4; 14:1; are essentially concerned, not with such theoretical denials as, “There is no God,” but with those practical denials that result in disregarding His presence (14:2, 4; cf. 10:4 KJV). Rather, the personality of God is described in such realistic terms as sometimes to appear unduly anthropomorphic (e.g., 2:4); all this serves to emphasize the genuineness of His existence as a real Person, who is concerned with the welfare of His creatures (73:26).

Psalms 19 and 119 are the poems of revelation, both general (in nature, 19:1-6), and special (His verbalized communication in history, 19:8-14). Whereas the former is limited to a confronting of man with the fact of God’s greatness—

There is no speech nor language;

Their voice is not heard (v. 3 ASV)—

the latter brings to men an eternal restoration and acceptance before God (vv. 7, 9, 14), esp. through the Mosaic law, which is the consistent theme of Scripture’s longest ch., the 176 vv. of Psalm 119. Correspondingly, the divine name moves on from אֵ֑ל or אֱלֹהִ֔ים, God transcendent, in 19:1, to יְהוָ֣ה, the personal name, Yahwe(h), meaning He is present, immanentally, to redeem, in vv. 7-14 (cf. Exod 3:14 and J. B. Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, 147, 148).

As in the previous written revelation of the Pentateuch (Deut 4:35, 39), Psalm 115 affirms monotheism: the gods of the pagans are mere idols (vv. 4-7). When the latter do find mention poetically (e.g.,